Convention Center Committee - May 30, 2025
Present: Katlyn Balstad, Charley Johnson, Mallari Ackerman, Clare Hughes, Joe Raso, Kent Kolstad (via video conference), Emma McIntyre, Taylor Snelling, Denise Kolpack, Tim Mahoney.
Absent: Shannon Full, Dave Piepkorn, John Strand, Michelle Turnberg.
Others Present: Jim Gilmour, Assistant City Attorney Erik Johnson (via video conference), Michael Redlinger, Susan Thompson.
Charley Johnson received a call from Tom Hazinski of HVS regarding the FARGODOME’s inquiry to update previous proforma numbers. He said Mr. Hazinski wanted to know if this posed a conflict of interest. Mr. Johnson said the contract with HVS does not include an exclusivity clause, so Mr. Hazinski can choose to work with the FARGODOME; however, he is recommending that if HVS works with the FARGODOME and they submit a proposal, the Committee would need to find someone else to evaluate proposals to avoid a conflict of interest. He said all developers, including the FARGODOME, have access to the generic, updated work HVS did for the Committee. Mr. Johnson said he brought this up to Visit Fargo Moorhead Board of Directors and they advised that if HVS took the business with the FARGODOME, they should be eliminated from doing future evaluations for the Committee.
The Committee agreed that if HVS chooses to work with the FARGODOME, the Committee should look elsewhere for evaluations to maintain a clean and unbiased process to avoid any perception of conflict of interest.
Joe Raso moved to formally communicate to Mr. Hazinski that if HVS chooses to do work for the FARGODOME the Committee will seek evaluations elsewhere. Second by Denise Kolpack. All the members present voted aye and the motion was declared carried.
Jim Gilmour summarized the draft RFP document. He said the key points in the RFP are as follows:
• The budget must include land, site preparation, building construction and furniture, fixtures and equipment.
• All information will be available to the Selection Committee, City Commissioners, staff and the public.
• A process for submitting written questions will be in place to clarify any ambiguities.
• Background information will include links from the EDC, CVB and the Chamber, and the HVS market assessment.
Selection Process (Phase 1): Proposers will submit a proposed site, preliminary concept and basic information.
• No more than five finalists will be selected to submit detailed proposals.
• The Selection Committee will review proposals and forward recommendations to the City Commission, which makes the final decisions.
• The RFP leaves open the possibility of presentations from proposers.
• Selection Committee Goals: Fargo-themed, functionally appropriate and fiscally responsible.
• Convention Center Requirements: "Should include" and "suggested minimum" language for flexibility.
• Proposal Requirements: Extensive information on the development team, including experience and references.
• Site information including size, adjacent streets, utility issues and land use.
• Proposers should note if financial assistance is needed for site clearing (e.g., TIF district).
Phase 2: Developers may ask for incentives (e.g., property tax exemption) to justify feasibility, which would be evaluated with a "but for" test. This is when more detailed financial information would be required.
• The lodging tax is expected to generate $37-$41 million over 25 years and this is the budget for the Convention Center construction.
Mr. Gilmour emphasized that if proposals exceed this budget (e.g., $60 million), they will likely be rejected.
Phase 3: Negotiations with selected developers.
• Requests for detailed project concepts, with HVS potentially reviewing general layouts.
• Information on nearby amenities (restaurants, etc.) and potential for additional private development.
• General operating plan for the convention center and hotel, including catering philosophy.
• Phase 2 Proposal Requirements (more general): Detailed plans for the convention center (HVS or similar to review layout and flow), and a financial plan for the development (PFM or Baker Tilly to assess bank commitments, investors and resources to complete construction).
• Property tax incentives may be discussed in this phase if financially justified.
Mr. Gilmour clarified that the City will be reserving a portion of the sales tax proceeds for potential operating losses over and above the $37-$41 million. Approximately $500,000.00 is budgeted for operating losses in each of the first two years, he said, plus reserves for capital improvements and bond coverage.
• Action: Add a note in the RFP near the budget figure that it anticipates holding out some funds for operating subsidies.
• Parking: Clarify "adequate on-site parking" to include "on-site or adjacent parking" to allow for flexibility and not limit proposals to only on-site parking.
• Action: Change verbiage to "parking that can serve the facility's functions."
Mr. Gilmour said he will make the changes and send out the revised draft early next week.
The Committee discussed accelerating the timeline.
Option 1 (proposed by Mr. Gilmour):
• RFP to City Commission for approval on June 23rd.
• RFP issued by June 25th.
• Questions due by July 20th/25th (approx. 1 month).
• Questions answered within a week.
• Proposals due by August 21st.
• First discussion of proposals on August 29th (allowing one week for review).
• Consider meeting on August 15th and 22nd to allow for two weeks to review proposals, especially if many are received.
Option 2:
• Final approval of RFP next week and get it to the City Commission meeting by June 9th.
• Concern: Mr. Gilmour will not be present on June 9th, which could be a setback for discussing the document. The Commission deadline is Thursday.
• Decision: Tentatively go with the accelerated timeline, aiming for City Commission approval on June 9th.
• Action: Mr. Gilmour to make changes and send the draft around. The Committee will ask to put it on the City Commission agenda for Thursday. The Committee will still meet on Friday to give final approval. If further revisions are needed, Commissioner Kolpack or Michael Redlinger can introduce them for the Monday meeting.
Ms. Kolpack said she received an inquiry from a local artist about setting aside funds for local artists to contribute to the aesthetics of the final project.
Committee members will research models and options from other communities and Convention Centers on how fine arts commissions are typically handled in formal builds, including looking into previous City Hall construction and the new airport remodel. Determine a potential budget for art and how it would fit into the overall project budget or if other resources are available (e.g., 1% for the arts designation).
Ms. Kolpack said she will follow up with the Arts Partnership.
The meeting was adjourned at 1:39 p.m.